Photo ID with a CPL to OC on a bus?

[gogodawgs]

By officers not asking for your CPL while riding a motorcycle does not imply they are not able to at another point.

This entire thread has been about being being required to show ones CPL when entering an area where it would be unlawful to carry a loaded gun.

It still stands in State law an Officer can demand to see ones CPL when in an area that requires one, you can rant, rave, through a fit, scream, yell, cry and it still does not change what it is.

Yet it is not required to have one when waiting or riding a bus.

 

[BigDave]

Amusing but typical.

It doesn't "stand" that part hasn't been fought in court I don't believe it would "stand". But of course I am not a positivist.

Of course and I am not an anarchist !

Yet it is not required to have one when waiting or riding a bus.

Yes is it required when entering a restricted area ie a vehicle to include a bus, are there exceptions to the law, yes which a small group of people that fall into these categories, is it really that hard to understand?

How many more can get into that little car?

 

[gogodawgs]

Of course and I am not an anarchist !



Yes is it required when entering a restricted area ie a vehicle to include a bus, are there exceptions to the law, yes which a small group of people that fall into these categories, is it really that hard to understand?

How many more can get into that little car?

Your driving....

No it's not a small group. Anyone can be a member of champion arms.

Officer "demands" CPL.
OP states he doesn't have one.

Investigative detention ....
OP asserts right to remain silent.
Asks if he is free to leave....
Calls attorney....

Again there are ZERO "facts" for the detention. Only one single observation that the observed behavior "may" be a misdemeanor.

Without a warrant to seize the firearm (to see if it's loaded) and without "facts" and NOT assumptions the officer is seizing the individual illegally in the state of Washington.

 

[hermannr]

Your driving....

No it's not a small group. Anyone can be a member of champion arms.

Officer "demands" CPL.
OP states he doesn't have one.

Investigative detention ....
OP asserts right to remain silent.
Asks if he is free to leave....
Calls attorney....

Again there are ZERO "facts" for the detention. Only one single observation that the observed behavior "may" be a misdemeanor.

Without a warrant to seize the firearm (to see if it's loaded) and without "facts" and NOT assumptions the officer is seizing the individual illegally in the state of Washington.

Yep, that is the way I see it too. If it CAN be legal, it must be assumed it IS legal. This is "innocent until proven guilty".

Seizure would mean we are guilty until we prove we are innocent...not the way it is supposed to work.

As GoGodawgs stated, there is more than one reason you may not even need to produce a CPL in a legal detention. However, demanding a CPL, where the reason is just having possession of an openly carried firearm, is NEVER a reason for a legal detention.

 

[Difdi]

Nowhere did I state he doesn't have RAS for seeing you break the law, that is actually PC. What I am saying again is that assumptions without facts to back up your assumptions are not RAS. He can't just assume you are driving without a license, he can't just assume you don't have a CPL. Understand? That simple.

Your third sentence contradicts your first one. RAS is a lesser standard than PC. If you don't have RAS then you cannot have PC either. If an officer cannot assume you do not have a CPL, and cannot investigate to see whether you are exempted from 9.41.050 then 9.41.050 effectively has been repealed and has no legal force except as an add-on charge when you are arrested for something else. Assuming you can lawfully be arrested for anything, if seeing you commit a misdemeanor does not generate any PC or RAS.

If an officer sees someone engage in behavior that is a misdemeanor but which has numerous exemptions, that is NOT probable cause because there are many people exempted. But it is RAS (boarding a vehicle with a loaded weapon is a crime, entering a court room with a loaded weapon is a crime, etc) to inquire as to whether the possible-criminal is exempt. If they are exempt, then no crime was committed and they go on their way. If they are not exempt, the results of the inquiry are probable cause and an arrest occurs. If an officer is legally prohibited from investigation whether an exemption exists, the fact remains that he has still witnessed a misdemeanor being committed. Understand? That simple.

Same principle would apply to situations a CPL is required here......

It is indeed an interesting case.

But it is IRRELEVANT to the discussion at hand.

We are discussing someone who, during a consensual encounter, stated to a police officer that his weapon was loaded, and that he intended to board a vehicle with it loaded. This is not the same as simply standing on the sidewalk or in a crowd OC or CC. This is the next thing to a confession. Entering a court room with a weapon, or boarding a vehicle with a loaded weapon are crimes in this state. Since numerous exemptions to both crimes do exist, simply seeing someone do so is not probable cause, but it is reasonable articulable suspicion that a crime may have been committed, which is sufficient to investigate whether an exemption to the law exists. If it is legally impermissible to carry out such an investigation, the fact remains that a crime was, as far as the officer can see, committed. If seeing a crime committed is impossible to investigate because someone might be exempt, then all laws that have any exemption whatsoever, in the entire state of Washington, have effectively been repealed or modified into secondary offenses.

Yet it is not required to have one when waiting or riding a bus.

Partially incorrect. You can legally ride on a bus all you want with an unloaded weapon. But doing so with a loaded weapon is a misdemeanor. Exemptions to the law do exists. Just like exemptions to carrying a weapon inside of a court room while court is in session do exist. But it remains a misdemeanor.

Again there are ZERO "facts" for the detention. Only one single observation that the observed behavior "may" be a misdemeanor.

If that were true, 9.41.050 would effectively have been repealed. Has it? If witnessing a crime being committed does not create even RAS of a crime being committed because exemptions exist, then it can't create probable cause either. Which means that violating any of those laws where exemptions exist cannot be a primary offense.

I rather doubt openly carrying a loaded firearm into a courtroom would not generate RAS, but you seem to be arguing that anyway. Because that restriction on carry also has exemptions built into it.

Without a warrant to seize the firearm (to see if it's loaded) and without "facts" and NOT assumptions the officer is seizing the individual illegally in the state of Washington.

If seeing a misdemeanor committed does not generate any facts, then nothing does. You could pull your gun out and go on a shoot spree in front of a police officer, and he would lack RAS to detain you because he lacks facts, only assumptions. You might be defending yourself against weapons he didn't see, after all, since he must assume your behavior is lawful barring observable facts to the contrary. See where your logic goes? I've been arguing all along that your viewpoint is absurd at all extents of it. Just because you may be exempted from a law, the officer does not know that the misdemeanor he just witnessed being committed was not a crime.

Yep, that is the way I see it too. If it CAN be legal, it must be assumed it IS legal. This is "innocent until proven guilty".

Completely, utterly wrong. There are (rare) circumstances where drawing your weapon and firing into a crowd would be legal. There are circumstances where shooting a uniformed police officer would be legal. There are circumstances where smashing in a car window and driving off in the car would be legal.

Innocent until proven guilty is a misquote. The actual phrase is "innocent until proven guilty in a court of law." If our innocence prevents us from ever being investigated, then we will never see the inside of a court room, since it would be impossible to ever prove guilt, in a court of law or anywhere else.

To claim that because we are innocent until proven guilty, that a police officer witnessing any of these things cannot investigate us, is absurd.

Seizure would mean we are guilty until we prove we are innocent...not the way it is supposed to work.

Permanent seizure is a punishment, yes. And punishing someone who has not been proven guilty in court is indeed illegal. But an investigative detention is not a punishment. If investigation is illegal, then no one can ever be proven guilty of anything, which is a legal absurdity.

As GoGodawgs stated, there is more than one reason you may not even need to produce a CPL in a legal detention. However, demanding a CPL, where the reason is just having possession of an openly carried firearm, is NEVER a reason for a legal detention.

There are circumstances where you can legally fire your weapon into a crowd. There are circumstances where loaded open carry inside a courtroom while court is in session is legal. There are circumstances where you could shoot a uniformed police officer legally. But the fact that exceptions exist to the laws making these things normally be criminal acts does not mean that you cannot be investigated for doing them, particularly if you do them in front of a police officer.

Reasonable suspicion is a lesser standard of evidence than reasonable articulable suspicion. Both are lesser standards (easier to reach) than probable cause. But your definition of innocent until proven guilty is several levels of evidence beyond even probable cause. If police must first prove you guilty to the extent required for a conviction in court, then they cannot ever gather the evidence required for that level of proof, because you seem to think that RAS is insufficient to investigate. For that matter, by your definition, all arrests are false, because probable cause is not proof of guilt either.

 

[Vitaeus]

Done derailing this thread. OP gave the LEO enough information to allow the demand for his CPL, the subsequent demand for a Drivers License and his seizure of the CPL to compel its' production were beyond the scope of the LEOs authority.

I started another thread to discuss the .050 and .060 discussion which has taken up the last 5 pages of this thread.

http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/showthread.php?105615-9-41-050-and-9-41-060-discussion

come on over and lets throw actual citations and quotes at one another, since I see a large difference of opinion between some of us.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Your third sentence contradicts your first one. RAS is a lesser standard than PC. If you don't have RAS then you cannot have PC either. If an officer cannot assume you do not have a CPL, and cannot investigate to see whether you are exempted from 9.41.050 then 9.41.050 effectively has been repealed and has no legal force except as an add-on charge when you are arrested for something else. Assuming you can lawfully be arrested for anything, if seeing you commit a misdemeanor does not generate any PC or RAS.

Tell me why an officer can assume you don't have an CPL? But he can't assume you don't have a drivers license? Seeing an actual crime is PC, put together enough articulate facts to back up your suspicion someone is engaged in or about to engage in unlawful activity is RAS.

If an officer sees someone engage in behavior that is a misdemeanor but which has numerous exemptions, that is NOT probable cause because there are many people exempted. But it is RAS (boarding a vehicle with a loaded weapon is a crime, entering a court room with a loaded weapon is a crime, etc) to inquire as to whether the possible-criminal is exempt. If they are exempt, then no crime was committed and they go on their way. If they are not exempt, the results of the inquiry are probable cause and an arrest occurs. If an officer is legally prohibited from investigation whether an exemption exists, the fact remains that he has still witnessed a misdemeanor being committed. Understand? That simple.

Did you not read the how the judges ruled in Florida, I provided you a cite.



It is indeed an interesting case.

But it is IRRELEVANT to the discussion at hand.

We are discussing someone who, during a consensual encounter, stated to a police officer that his weapon was loaded, and that he intended to board a vehicle with it loaded. This is not the same as simply standing on the sidewalk or in a crowd OC or CC. This is the next thing to a confession. Entering a court room with a weapon, or boarding a vehicle with a loaded weapon are crimes in this state. Since numerous exemptions to both crimes do exist, simply seeing someone do so is not probable cause, but it is reasonable articulable suspicion that a crime may have been committed, which is sufficient to investigate whether an exemption to the law exists. If it is legally impermissible to carry out such an investigation, the fact remains that a crime was, as far as the officer can see, committed. If seeing a crime committed is impossible to investigate because someone might be exempt, then all laws that have any exemption whatsoever, in the entire state of Washington, have effectively been repealed or modified into secondary offenses.

Ah I see so in this case yes he might have RAS because of the admissions of the person the officer talked to. This is not what I have been discussing and I am starting to feel you are intentionally missing that fact although I have made that abundantly clear.



Partially incorrect. You can legally ride on a bus all you want with an unloaded weapon. But doing so with a loaded weapon is a misdemeanor. Exemptions to the law do exists. Just like exemptions to carrying a weapon inside of a court room while court is in session do exist. But it remains a misdemeanor.



If that were true, 9.41.050 would effectively have been repealed. Has it? If witnessing a crime being committed does not create even RAS of a crime being committed because exemptions exist, then it can't create probable cause either. Which means that violating any of those laws where exemptions exist cannot be a primary offense.



I rather doubt openly carrying a loaded firearm into a courtroom would not generate RAS, but you seem to be arguing that anyway. Because that restriction on carry also has exemptions built into it.



If seeing a misdemeanor committed does not generate any facts, then nothing does. You could pull your gun out and go on a shoot spree in front of a police officer, and he would lack RAS to detain you because he lacks facts, only assumptions. You might be defending yourself against weapons he didn't see, after all, since he must assume your behavior is lawful barring observable facts to the contrary. See where your logic goes? I've been arguing all along that your viewpoint is absurd at all extents of it. Just because you may be exempted from a law, the officer does not know that the misdemeanor he just witnessed being committed was not a crime.



Completely, utterly wrong. There are (rare) circumstances where drawing your weapon and firing into a crowd would be legal. There are circumstances where shooting a uniformed police officer would be legal. There are circumstances where smashing in a car window and driving off in the car would be legal.

Innocent until proven guilty is a misquote. The actual phrase is "innocent until proven guilty in a court of law." If our innocence prevents us from ever being investigated, then we will never see the inside of a court room, since it would be impossible to ever prove guilt, in a court of law or anywhere else.

To claim that because we are innocent until proven guilty, that a police officer witnessing any of these things cannot investigate us, is absurd.

Please cite where anybody said an officer can't investigate you?


Permanent seizure is a punishment, yes. And punishing someone who has not been proven guilty in court is indeed illegal. But an investigative detention is not a punishment. If investigation is illegal, then no one can ever be proven guilty of anything, which is a legal absurdity.

Please cite where anybody said an investigation is illegal?


There are circumstances where you can legally fire your weapon into a crowd. There are circumstances where loaded open carry inside a courtroom while court is in session is legal. There are circumstances where you could shoot a uniformed police officer legally. But the fact that exceptions exist to the laws making these things normally be criminal acts does not mean that you cannot be investigated for doing them, particularly if you do them in front of a police officer.

Reasonable suspicion is a lesser standard of evidence than reasonable articulable suspicion. Both are lesser standards (easier to reach) than probable cause. But your definition of innocent until proven guilty is several levels of evidence beyond even probable cause. If police must first prove you guilty to the extent required for a conviction in court, then they cannot ever gather the evidence required for that level of proof, because you seem to think that RAS is insufficient to investigate. For that matter, by your definition, all arrests are false, because probable cause is not proof of guilt either.

Please cite court cases or law to back your assertions up, I have.

 

[Difdi]

Please cite court cases or law to back your assertions up, I have.

You are willfully ignorant, hermannr is more so. And your transparent attempt to make it difficult to quote your post to reply to it is childish. I'm done with you.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

You are willfully ignorant, hermannr is more so. And your transparent attempt to make it difficult to quote your post to reply to it is childish. I'm done with you.

Excuse me?

I have done nothing but treated you with respect, ignoring your semi adhominem attacks trying to reason with you. The only thing transparent here is you don't like people who disagree with you especially when you can't cite anything to back up your assertions.

 

[Difdi]

Excuse me?

I have done nothing but treated you with respect, ignoring your semi adhominem attacks trying to reason with you. The only thing transparent here is you don't like people who disagree with you especially when you can't cite anything to back up your assertions.

I take exception to (and make exceptions for) libel. I've made my points over and over, and they're as provably true now as the first time I cited the law. Scroll (way) up. I have not attacked you or anyone else except in response to attacks on me.

Due to the way posting in this forum works, by imbedding your own responses in a different color within the text you quoted from my post, simply quoting your post in a reply misses all of it. You sir, are transparent. Don't be upset at getting caught out. If this is how you show respect, I'd imagine you have very few friends and a great many enemies.

 

[rapgood]

Reasonable suspicion is a lesser standard of evidence than reasonable articulable suspicion.

I think that "reasonable suspicion" and "reasonable articulable suspicion" are one in the same. A Terry stop is also known as a "stop and frisk."

A "stop and frisk" is found where a police officer has the right to stop and pat down a person suspected of contemplating the commission of a crime. Reasonable suspicion which is sufficient for stop and frisk is more than a mere hunch but less than probable cause. U.S. v. Sokolow, 109 S.Ct. 1581, 104 L.Ed.2d 1 (1989). The scope of the search must be strictly tied to and justified by the circumstances which rendered the initiation of the stop justified. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1986).

An "investigatory stop" is a stop which is limited to brief, nonintrusive detention during a frisk for weapons or preliminary questioning, is considered a "seizure" sufficient to invoke Fourth Amendment safeguards, but because of its less intrusive character requires only that the stopping officer have specific and articulable facts sufficient to give rise to reasonable suspicion that a person has committed or is committing a crime. United States v. Woods, 720 F.2d 1022, 1025 (9th Cir. 1983).

I stand by my earlier comments that LEO could stop the OC prior to getting on the bus when the OC has clearly stated that he intends to get on the bus, ostensibly with a loaded gun, similar to the fact pattern found in Sokolow.

 

[Difdi]

I think that "reasonable suspicion" and "reasonable articulable suspicion" are one in the same.

Theoretically true, but in practice there's a difference. Literally, does it sound stupid when the reason is spoken aloud?

 

[davidmcbeth]

Which leaves the officer unable to check for an exemption,


Fact: The officer cannot see that you are exempted from the law.
Fact: The officer has witnessed a misdemeanor being committed.
Fact: The officer has a duty to enforce the law.

Is it an EXCEPTION or EXEMPTION .. they are different...just wondering

Also, policeman does not have a DUTY to enforce a law. A duty is something you cannot shirk ... but our separation of the law makers and law enforcers is present so that law enforcers do not have to enforce laws that the law enforcer sees as being improper. So there is not duty to enforce. Just my 2 cents.